Share this story

Things like extreme weather and droughts are the high-profile impacts of climate change—they are easy to see and understand. Sea level rise is much more subtle and slow-moving, but it's inexorable. Even if we stabilize our climate at a new, higher average temperature, the seas will continue to rise for centuries as the added warmth slowly melts ice and causes the water in the oceans to expand in volume.

However, since so much of human infrastructure is built right on the coasts, the rising ocean levels have the potential to cause more disruption than any other factor. Recently, some researchers attempted to quantify just how damaging sea level rise will be. At its high end, the costs are staggering: a touch over nine percent of the global GDP by the end of this century. However, that number assumes we'll keep building right on the coasts—and we're not really that shortsighted, right?

Projecting the costs involved with sea level rise by the end of the century is a difficult challenge. To begin with, the height of the seas will depend on the rate of warming, which will depend on the trajectory that emissions (and thus temperatures) take. So there are both cultural uncertainties—will we get our carbon emissions under control or not?—and scientific uncertainties about the rate of warming and how that rate will be reflected in ocean levels.

Once you have scenarios for the change in coastline, you have to start thinking about what that actually means. And that analysis depends on measurements of the current status, such as how much infrastructure we already have that will be at risk in the future. It also depends on models of the future: how much will we build near the coastline in the near term, and how much will we be willing to spend on protecting it in the longer term?

To give one practical example of the issues confronting the authors, it's instructive to consider one of the relatively simple factors involved in their study: the elevation of land near the coasts. One of the data sets available on land elevation was generated using the Space Shuttle. The Shuttle measured elevation with a technology that overestimated the true elevation because it registered the height of the tops of foliage and any ground cover. The authors generated estimates with both the Shuttle data and a separate measure derived from satellite sensing, and they included the difference as part of their uncertainty estimates.

(One of their data sets, used to measure the amount of infrastructure already in place at the coasts, comes from the delightfully acronymed Global Rural–Urban Mapping Project, or GRUMP.)

Based on these estimates alone, the value of assets within the reach of a 100-year flood event will range between $17 trillion and $180 trillion by the end of the century—and that's under an emissions scenario that's unrealistically low. Under business-as-usual emissions (the IPCC's RCP 8.5), the figures will range from $21 trillion to $210 trillion. We'll naturally lose some of that infrastructure to flooding each year. Even under the unrealistically low emissions scenario, the losses could reach up to five percent of the global GDP annually. For the business-as-usual, it ranges from a low of 1.2 percent to a high of over 9.5 percent.

The authors say that last figure is unrealistically high. Surely, they reason, we'll stop building so much near the coast and start relocating some vulnerable populations before the end of the century. But they also admit that in many areas of the globe, urbanization is leading to a coastward migration that is actually expanding the risk. In the US, state governments appear to be refusing to accept reality when it comes to sea level rise.

We can also make matters worse by continuing to pump ground water at unsustainable rates. This water will eventually end up in the ocean and, when pumped in coastal areas, can lead to ground subsidence that enhances the impact of rising oceans.

Of course, at least some areas can be protected by building infrastructure to keep the ocean out. Even under a low-emission scenario, costs for dike maintenance are expected to reach at least $12 billion a year by the end of the century; for higher emissions, the cost could reach up to $71 billion. Here, economics leads to a complicated trade-off: wealthy countries will put more (and more expensive) infrastructure near the coast, but their populations will likely demand more protection and be better able to pay for it.

Given the huge uncertainties, it might be tempting to ask what the value of this sort of study is. By showing a range of potential costs, the work provides some indication of what the scale of the problem will be, giving planners some sense of how to prioritize potential fixes. By incorporating multiple scenarios in their models, the authors have given themselves the chance to improve their estimates as data becomes more certain and as the path we're actually taking into the future becomes increasingly clear.

179 Reader Comments

You think sea levels rising is bad, just wait to see what happens when the sky starts falling.

So what exactly does that mean, the sky is falling? I mean we can measure sea level rise, but can we measure how much the sky has fallen?

/tard

Some of you people were born yesterday. "The sky is falling!" refers to a storybook character, I believe his name was Chicken Little, who went around in a panic believing that the sky was falling down. It was a caricature of the nervous, skittish nature of chickens, and a lesson about needless anxiety. The sky cannot fall, because it is not a physical object per se held up by anything, the way a roof is. When you see the sky you are simply seeing air and looking up towards outer space. It cannot "fall". The sky is also ever-present, the way anxiety is in these doomsaysers who believe that the world will undergo some terminal environmental cataclysm, based on no more evidence than Chicken Little had. A one millimeter rise in sea level per year means that New York and other cities will be inundated next year, in their minds. Never mind the fact that cities naturally age and newer buildings are built, old ones destroyed all the time, and no one is going to be inundated overnight. Cities naturally change and shift . Just look at any city or town 40 years ago, 100 years ago, compared to today. Don't build a building on the beach, stupid. Move to higher ground which is usually two blocks away. The sky is not falling, Chicken Littles of the world; your anxiety is simply out of control and you're projecting that onto the world around you. The culture is falling, and you instinctively perceive that, but your defenses prevent you from recognizing that and you scapegoat the reason for your anxiety onto something else. It is so obvious.

I really wonder what you people are taught in school. These children's stories are parables for learning proper thinking and I don't think kids are taught those anymore. Instead they're instilled with a great deal of fear about the world around them and no way to think their way out of it.

Tell that to the people In Chelyabinsk Russia. The sky fell pretty spectacularly on them...

I've never understood why modern man builds in such environmentally hostile places then act shocked when a hurricane, flood, landslide ect... flushes it all away. Now if a volcano popped up in minnesota, you could legitimately say you didn't see that coming. #learntoswim

It's pretty obvious why we build major cities in areas that are prone to flooding and hurricanes (i.e., beside bodies of water), isn't it? International shipping routes are the arteries of the modern economy and you need a good harbor to participate. Besides, most (if not all) of the major cities were built prior to the advent of global warming and sea level rise, or at least before awareness of it.

Besides, there are few places on Earth that aren't prone to some kind of natural disaster. Where would you recommend that we all move? Minnesota is prone to blizzards, tornadoes, floods, derechos (which can bring hurricane-force winds) and the occasional earthquake. I'd be surprised if there is any place that isn't susceptible to at least a few natural disasters.

You think sea levels rising is bad, just wait to see what happens when the sky starts falling.

So what exactly does that mean, the sky is falling? I mean we can measure sea level rise, but can we measure how much the sky has fallen?

/tard

Some of you people were born yesterday. "The sky is falling!" refers to a storybook character, I believe his name was Chicken Little, who went around in a panic believing that the sky was falling down. It was a caricature of the nervous, skittish nature of chickens, and a lesson about needless anxiety. The sky cannot fall, because it is not a physical object per se held up by anything, the way a roof is. When you see the sky you are simply seeing air and looking up towards outer space. It cannot "fall". The sky is also ever-present, the way anxiety is in these doomsaysers who believe that the world will undergo some terminal environmental cataclysm, based on no more evidence than Chicken Little had. A one millimeter rise in sea level per year means that New York and other cities will be inundated next year, in their minds. Never mind the fact that cities naturally age and newer buildings are built, old ones destroyed all the time, and no one is going to be inundated overnight. Cities naturally change and shift . Just look at any city or town 40 years ago, 100 years ago, compared to today. Don't build a building on the beach, stupid. Move to higher ground which is usually two blocks away. The sky is not falling, Chicken Littles of the world; your anxiety is simply out of control and you're projecting that onto the world around you. The culture is falling, and you instinctively perceive that, but your defenses prevent you from recognizing that and you scapegoat the reason for your anxiety onto something else. It is so obvious.

I really wonder what you people are taught in school. These children's stories are parables for learning proper thinking and I don't think kids are taught those anymore. Instead they're instilled with a great deal of fear about the world around them and no way to think their way out of it.

We all know the story reference, genius, thanks for your condescension. No one is making the straw-man claims you are saying. And yes, cities do naturally change and shift, but its far easier to add and grow than to shift the existing infrastructure and people. The question is what the added cost is of having everyone pick up stakes and move, possibly far earlier than they would have otherwise, and adjust the infrastructure to match.

The failure, or rather refusal, of common people in a developed society to even contemplate mobility as rational or even possible option is absurd. "I grew up here, this is all I know, I'll just rebuild the same thing, the same way, in the same place!" Well, in all fairness, you're a fucking idiot. Go somewhere else, anywhere else. Somewhere tornadoes don't literally hit annually or hurricanes hit semiannually or somewhere that has jobs. I mean, at least once you've been wiped out, you are down to a blank slate. But all the sympathetic idiots willing to help just encourage the stubborn adherence to the status quo.

There isn't a single spot of land on earth that isn't prone to some sort of major disaster. I mean Yellowstone is essentially a giant super volcano that when it goes could potentially ruin the entire North American continent in the short term. Or on a smaller scale your residence could be sitting on a giant sink hole.

So your retort to my talking about people who live in areas prone to natural disasters involves pointing out unpredictable one-off disasters, including one that would just straight up fuck up the entire continent? Hey, you know what? If my house was eaten by a sinkhole, I'd fucking move.

Quote:

Either way hundreds of millions of people live on the coasts in states and it makes more sense finding ways to mitigate the affects rather than trying to move everyone.

No, it really doesn't. You can put all the buildings in the area on stilts and raise those stilts annually ...or you could move everyone to the hill away from the water.

Your exchange had me laughing. He doesn't seem to get that he is exactly the kind of person you were talking about. No kidding it makes sense to be mobile in areas where massive flooding or powerful storms are an annual event or even semi common. To pretend there is no problem living in those areas is ticking ones head in the sand. But we humans are a bit hard headed and will keep doing this sort of thing. Look at Katrina. Home many people chose to rebuild in the same place instead of moving to safer locations? I remember as a kid every year seeing the people who lived along the Mississippi river with their homes being washed away asking for government help. The question always came up during the news casts. "Why do these people choose to live there when they know this happens every year?"

There is always the dutch option, 20% of the country is under sea level. Just dam dam dam everything.

I'm not talking about the media, I'm talking about peer-reviewed journal articles and the scientists behind them.

Who do you think the author is talking to?Nissen, Hanson, Wadhams...McPherson is a scientist, just not directly in the climate warming field. He aggregates, filters, synthesizes, AGW materials. You should maybe read the article.

I'm not talking about the media, I'm talking about peer-reviewed journal articles and the scientists behind them.

Who do you think the author is talking to?Nissen, Hanson, Wadhams...McPherson is a scientist, just not directly in the climate warming field. He aggregates AGW materials. You should maybe read the article.

It should be pointed out that no computer model predicting anything to do with climate has ever proved accurate. By way of example, see how temperatures in the real world have stubbornly refused to co-operate with the dramatic predictions from the warmistas.

Check this out: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.” – Kevin Trenberth

Interesting info, but I'm not clear on what assumptions are being made. Humans have a tendency to adjust to things rather than just continuing on in the direction we are going. There's a lot of short term pain for individuals (see "The Grapes of Wrath"), but in the long run we accommodate reality pretty well.

In addition, I find that economists generally make poor climatologists and climatologists make pretty poor economists, and both disciplines have huge levels of uncertainty.

I'm not talking about the media, I'm talking about peer-reviewed journal articles and the scientists behind them.

Who do you think the author is talking to?Nissen, Hanson, Wadhams...McPherson is a scientist, just not directly in the climate warming field. He aggregates AGW materials. You should maybe read the article.

"Not directly in the climate warming field" is exactly the point.

A guy working on sea ice is not going to have any special qualifications talking about the Amazon rainforest. But AGW is a global phenomenon and data must be aggregated and synthesized. It still comes down to facts and logic.

The failure, or rather refusal, of common people in a developed society to even contemplate mobility as rational or even possible option is absurd. "I grew up here, this is all I know, I'll just rebuild the same thing, the same way, in the same place!" Well, in all fairness, you're a fucking idiot. Go somewhere else, anywhere else. Somewhere tornadoes don't literally hit annually or hurricanes hit semiannually or somewhere that has jobs. I mean, at least once you've been wiped out, you are down to a blank slate. But all the sympathetic idiots willing to help just encourage the stubborn adherence to the status quo.

When I retire*, I would like to move to this magical location that is immune to natural disasters. Where is it? I probably need to buy land there now, before everyone moves there and drives up the property values.

This kind of self-important ignorance makes my point. Where did I say "immune to natural disasters?" Oh, nowhere? Thought so. I said places that are hit by the same shit, all the fucking time. Have you ever looked a ta path of a tornado and thought "prime real estate!" Because that's what your what I assume is supposed to be witty retort says. You go ahead and build in a place that gets hit by tornadoes on a semiannual schedule, I'll go live some fucking where else.

I'm not talking about the media, I'm talking about peer-reviewed journal articles and the scientists behind them.

Who do you think the author is talking to?Nissen, Hanson, Wadhams...McPherson is a scientist, just not directly in the climate warming field. He aggregates, filters, synthesizes, AGW materials.

The IPCC asks scores of scientists, climate and otherwise, to do the same at regular intervals. This helps avoid any one person's quirks and shortcomings to ensure a more even, balanced, and expertise-driven synthesis of the collective body of research rather than reacting to the latest paper that comes out.

I wish you'd stop dragging that guy into threads. Does it really seem more likely that he's speaking the truth to power that everyone in the know is conspiring to keep quiet than that he's just some retired ecology prof who's gone off the deep end spinning an apocalyptic fantasy? Do you really think that the science (which is published and publicly available, by the way) shows the human race will be extinct within 20 years and no one else has noticed?

McPherson's stuff is on Youtube, with something new every few months. He hasn't always been "20 years to doomsday". This is recent, and reflects the reality of the evolving climate and our knowledge of it. A couple of years ago he was hopeful that something could still be done.

Mainly, I'm interested in the causes of the critically different outcomes between the models he cites, on one hand, and the work of the IPCC on the other. Specifically, what are the differences in inputs and analysis that lead to the markedly different outputs.

Since you keep bringing it up, the "timeline of progressively worse predictions" is bullshit. Did you click on any of the links for details? You should know by now that no one "predicts" anything- the models project warming for various scenarios of emissions. Why aren't the scenarios described on this timeline?

For example, the 2007 IPCC reference, supposedly predicting just 1C by 2100. If you actually click the link and go to the 14th page of that pdf, you can see the projections. The scenarios on that plot produce ~1.8-4C warming by 2100. Guess what the 2001 IPCC report projected? About the same.

How about the 2nd link, for Hadley? Supposedly 2C by 2100. I can find no global projections whatsoever in that document. There is a discussion of summer highs in the UK. I have absolutely no idea where the number was drawn from.

On the other end of the list, we've got the IEA supposedly predicting 3.5C by 2035. It's listed as November 2013. The link is to a story from November 2010. A little googling reveals that the IEA was not referring to a temperature change by 2035, but an amount of eventual warming resulting from the trajectory of emissions in 2035. From their 2010 report fact sheet:

Quote:

"In that scenario, global emissions continue to rise through the projection period, though the rate of growth falls progressively. Emissions jump to over 35 Gigatonne (Gt) in 2035 — 21% up on the 2008 level of 29 Gt. Non‑OECD countries account for all of the increase; OECD emissions peak before 2015 and then begin to fall. These trends are in line with stabilising the concentration of greenhouse gases (GHG) at over 650 parts per million (ppm) of CO2‑equivalent, resulting in a likely temperature rise of more than 3.5°C in the long term."

Not exactly the same thing, is it?

I looked at three. Three were wrong.

Now do you see what I'm talking about?

shockley22 wrote:

Yes, I do believe that only a few will be speaking the truth in the beginning. That is the nature of things.

No, it's not the nature of things. It's the nature of wild, baseless conspiracy theories. What's keeping thousands of climate scientists from revealing the (published and publicly available) "truth"??

Another story on sea level rise, another story that never states the actual current rate of rise, or what these "scary" estimates are assuming the sea level increases will be.

Let's not confuse the blatant fear mongering with any counter factuals, right?

But, you know, I must be a denier, since I would call these estimates of 9% of GDP into question, and label it as "climate hype". Every good hearted and well meaning environmental journalist will hurry to print this in the headlines, even if the authors of the paper don't even believe it is a reasonable estimate. Must have our enviro-doom article of the week to keep our eco bonafides in line. Only activists would print these numbers as headlines. I can't imagine why the public thinks claims of the effects of global warming are exaggerated.

But let's check what Ars apparently thinks the sea level rise number will be, since they didn't let us know here.

Here at science central Ars, they like to say the seas will rise "tens of meters" with a 2C temperature increase without qualification of scenario or timeline. So you can bank on the information provided here as well, and you can be sure this lines up with IPCC projections, or they wouldn't print it, right? This is science, not hype!

For the record, the actual current rate of sea It's 3 mm per year / 1 inch per decade. And the rate hasn't changed in 30 years based on satellite altimeter records. Only about half of this rise is due to human influence, the rest is naturally occurring since the end of the last ice age.

The IPCC expects this rate of increase to increase (i.e. acceleration) until we get about "1 of meter" of sea level rise by the end of the century. No sign of this acceleration yet based on the satellite measurements.

And what makes this even sadder for science, is questioning numbers like 9% of GDP and tens of meters of SLR gets you tossed into the denier box. This is what environmental science discussions have become.

Another story on sea level rise, another story that never states the actual current rate of rise, or what these "scary" estimates are assuming the sea level increases will be.

Let's not confuse the blatant fear mongering with any counter factuals, right?

But, you know, I must be a denier, since I would call these estimates of 9% of GDP into question, and label it as "climate hype". Every good hearted and well meaning environmental journalist will hurry to print this in the headlines, even if the authors of the paper don't even believe it is a reasonable estimate. Must have our enviro-doom article of the week to keep our eco bonafides in line. Only activists would print these numbers as headlines. I can't imagine why the public thinks claims of the effects of global warming are exaggerated.

But let's check what Ars apparently thinks the sea level rise number will be, since they didn't let us know here.

Here at science central Ars, they like to say the seas will rise "tens of meters" with a 2C temperature increase without qualification of scenario or timeline. So you can bank on the information provided here as well, and you can be sure this lines up with IPCC projections, or they wouldn't print it, right? This is science, not hype!

For the record, the actual current rate of sea It's 3 mm per year / 1 inch per decade. And the rate hasn't changed in 30 years based on satellite altimeter records. Only about half of this rise is due to human influence, the rest is naturally occurring since the end of the last ice age.

The IPCC expects this rate of increase to increase (i.e. acceleration) until we get about "1 of meter" of sea level rise by the end of the century. No sign of this acceleration yet based on the satellite measurements.

And what makes this even sadder for science, is questioning numbers like 9% of GDP and tens of meters of SLR gets you tossed into the denier box. This is what environmental science discussions have become.

Therefore, the facts clearly show the only reasonable course of action is climate change denial.I rest my case.

But seriously, "Only half of this rise is due to human influence." So human influence caused a 15 inch rise in sea levels in the last 30 years, by your estimation? Clearly, it is therefore of no concern to anyone.And 30 years seems like an oddly specific and short cut off point for data showing no change from the last ice age. Perhaps you can provide sources so we can equally critique your data?

I'm not talking about the media, I'm talking about peer-reviewed journal articles and the scientists behind them.

Who do you think the author is talking to?Nissen, Hanson, Wadhams...McPherson is a scientist, just not directly in the climate warming field. He aggregates, filters, synthesizes, AGW materials. You should maybe read the article.

Nissen is not a climate scientist, he's an engineering prof.Hansen (is how you spell it) would not buy any of what McPherson is selling.Wadhams is a sea ice guy who has bought into crazy claims about Arctic methane, for which there is no evidence. (Don't ask me why.)

As Wheels mentioned, the last IPCC report had over 200 climate scientists as lead authors, with another ~800 contributing, and even more providing comments on drafts.

There are more climate researchers who reject the anthropogenic nature of climate change than there are who would agree with McPherson's claims. I assume you've already dismissed them as not speaking truth to power, but rather being misguided. How did you make that decision?

For the record, the actual current rate of sea It's 3 mm per year / 1 inch per decade. And the rate hasn't changed in 30 years based on satellite altimeter records. Only about half of this rise is due to human influence, the rest is naturally occurring since the end of the last ice age.

The IPCC expects this rate of increase to increase (i.e. acceleration) until we get about "1 of meter" of sea level rise by the end of the century. No sign of this acceleration yet based on the satellite measurements.

But seriously, "Only half of this rise is due to human influence." So human influence caused a 15 inch rise in sea levels in the last 30 years, by your estimation?

You're mixing up the numbers he presented.

1 inch per decade for the past 30 years = 3 decades = 3", half of which is 1.5".It won't be 15" until 2100.

Another story on sea level rise, another story that never states the actual current rate of rise, or what these "scary" estimates are assuming the sea level increases will be.

Let's not confuse the blatant fear mongering with any counter factuals, right?

But, you know, I must be a denier, since I would call these estimates of 9% of GDP into question, and label it as "climate hype". Every good hearted and well meaning environmental journalist will hurry to print this in the headlines, even if the authors of the paper don't even believe it is a reasonable estimate. Must have our enviro-doom article of the week to keep our eco bonafides in line. Only activists would print these numbers as headlines. I can't imagine why the public thinks claims of the effects of global warming are exaggerated.

But let's check what Ars apparently thinks the sea level rise number will be, since they didn't let us know here.

Here at science central Ars, they like to say the seas will rise "tens of meters" with a 2C temperature increase without qualification of scenario or timeline. So you can bank on the information provided here as well, and you can be sure this lines up with IPCC projections, or they wouldn't print it, right? This is science, not hype!

For the record, the actual current rate of sea It's 3 mm per year / 1 inch per decade. And the rate hasn't changed in 30 years based on satellite altimeter records. Only about half of this rise is due to human influence, the rest is naturally occurring since the end of the last ice age.

The IPCC expects this rate of increase to increase (i.e. acceleration) until we get about "1 of meter" of sea level rise by the end of the century. No sign of this acceleration yet based on the satellite measurements.

And what makes this even sadder for science, is questioning numbers like 9% of GDP and tens of meters of SLR gets you tossed into the denier box. This is what environmental science discussions have become.

Therefore, the facts clearly show the only reasonable course of action is climate change denial.I rest my case.

But seriously, "Only half of this rise is due to human influence." So human influence caused a 15 inch rise in sea levels in the last 30 years, by your estimation? Clearly, it is therefore of no concern to anyone.And 30 years seems like an oddly specific and short cut off point for data showing no change from the last ice age. Perhaps you can provide sources so we can equally critique your data?

Ummmm...no.

The seas have risen approx. 3 inches in the last 30 years, not 30 inches. The time period stated is 30 years because that is about when satellite measurements started (actually since 1993). SLR estimates prior to this are done via indirect measurements such as tide gauges and are confounded by the land level changes which in many cases change faster than the SLR.

And that is in fact my point. I am surprised at how many people don't really know the SLR rates are very small, and definitely not very scary. Many people assume they are much higher and the media doesn't go out of their way to clarify this.

For the record, the actual current rate of sea It's 3 mm per year / 1 inch per decade. And the rate hasn't changed in 30 years based on satellite altimeter records. Only about half of this rise is due to human influence, the rest is naturally occurring since the end of the last ice age.

The IPCC expects this rate of increase to increase (i.e. acceleration) until we get about "1 of meter" of sea level rise by the end of the century. No sign of this acceleration yet based on the satellite measurements.

But seriously, "Only half of this rise is due to human influence." So human influence caused a 15 inch rise in sea levels in the last 30 years, by your estimation?

You're mixing up the numbers he presented.

1 inch per decade for the past 30 years = 3 decades = 3", half of which is 1.5".It won't be 15" until 2100.

Ok fair, mismathed, but I wasn't taking issue with the amount so much as the percentage. Half of the rise is manmade but it is still of literally no concern?

Another story on sea level rise, another story that never states the actual current rate of rise, or what these "scary" estimates are assuming the sea level increases will be....For the record, the actual current rate of sea It's 3 mm per year / 1 inch per decade. And the rate hasn't changed in 30 years based on satellite altimeter records.The IPCC expects this rate of increase to increase (i.e. acceleration) until we get about "1 of meter" of sea level rise by the end of the century. No sign of this acceleration yet based on the satellite measurements.

Looks like an acceleration to me. Funny how that happens when you look at periods of longer than 30 years! That's acceleration with a warming of "only" about 0.8C over the entire instrumental period. Under the RCP 8.5 scenarios (the "business as usual" ones referred to in the PNAS paper), temperatures over the next century are expected to rise by more than 4 degrees C. So further accelerations of sea level rise seem entirely plausible. That's not even getting into the more complex matters of physics which would cause acceleration, like increase lose of land ice sheets and thermal expansion of the oceans themselves. You know, all the entirely physical reasons that climate and ocean experts are expecting that kind of sea level rise. But sure, it's probably the media's fault because they like hype!

Quote:

And what makes this even sadder for science, is questioning numbers like 9% of GDP and tens of meters of SLR gets you tossed into the denier box.

What gets YOU locked in the denier box is your repetitious, hostile ignorance and your dismissal of science whose implications you don't like.

For the record, the actual current rate of sea It's 3 mm per year / 1 inch per decade. And the rate hasn't changed in 30 years based on satellite altimeter records. Only about half of this rise is due to human influence, the rest is naturally occurring since the end of the last ice age.

The IPCC expects this rate of increase to increase (i.e. acceleration) until we get about "1 of meter" of sea level rise by the end of the century. No sign of this acceleration yet based on the satellite measurements.

But seriously, "Only half of this rise is due to human influence." So human influence caused a 15 inch rise in sea levels in the last 30 years, by your estimation?

You're mixing up the numbers he presented.

1 inch per decade for the past 30 years = 3 decades = 3", half of which is 1.5".It won't be 15" until 2100.

Ok fair, mismathed, but I wasn't taking issue with the amount so much as the percentage. Half of the rise is manmade but it is still of literally no concern?

The point is that there will be SLR no matter what, and half of what we already have seen in the last 50 years was natural. We dealt with about 1 foot of SLR over the last century without incident, and we certainly can deal with 3 feet over the next 100 years if it comes to pass (the current rates show us doing another 1 foot this century, but it is expected to increase).

It is my opinion that everybody agrees on strengthening infrastructure against natural disasters, but once you toss the politics of global warming into the discussion, the debate instantly polarizes and collapses. So why do it?

For the record, the actual current rate of sea It's 3 mm per year / 1 inch per decade. And the rate hasn't changed in 30 years based on satellite altimeter records. Only about half of this rise is due to human influence, the rest is naturally occurring since the end of the last ice age.

The IPCC expects this rate of increase to increase (i.e. acceleration) until we get about "1 of meter" of sea level rise by the end of the century. No sign of this acceleration yet based on the satellite measurements.

But seriously, "Only half of this rise is due to human influence." So human influence caused a 15 inch rise in sea levels in the last 30 years, by your estimation?

You're mixing up the numbers he presented.

1 inch per decade for the past 30 years = 3 decades = 3", half of which is 1.5".It won't be 15" until 2100.

Ok fair, mismathed, but I wasn't taking issue with the amount so much as the percentage. Half of the rise is manmade but it is still of literally no concern?

The point is that there will be SLR no matter what, and half of what we already have seen in the last 50 years was natural. We dealt with about 1 foot of SLR over the last century without incident, and we certainly can deal with 3 feet over the next 100 years if it comes to pass (the current rates show us doing another 1 foot this century, but it is expected to increase).

It is my opinion that everybody agrees on strengthening infrastructure against natural disasters, but once you toss the politics of global warming into the discussion, the debate instantly polarizes and collapses. So why do it?

The point is 30 years of data does not a point make. 3 feet over 100 is way more than 1 foot over 100 years. Like 300% more.

Another story on sea level rise, another story that never states the actual current rate of rise, or what these "scary" estimates are assuming the sea level increases will be....For the record, the actual current rate of sea It's 3 mm per year / 1 inch per decade. And the rate hasn't changed in 30 years based on satellite altimeter records.The IPCC expects this rate of increase to increase (i.e. acceleration) until we get about "1 of meter" of sea level rise by the end of the century. No sign of this acceleration yet based on the satellite measurements.

Looks like an acceleration to me. Funny how that happens when you look at periods of longer than 30 years! That's acceleration with a warming of "only" about 0.8C over the entire instrumental period. Under the RCP 8.5 scenarios (the "business as usual" ones referred to in the PNAS paper), temperatures over the next century are expected to rise by more than 4 degrees C. So further accelerations of sea level rise seem entirely plausible. That's not even getting into the more complex matters of physics which would cause acceleration, like increase lose of land ice sheets and thermal expansion of the oceans themselves. You know, all the entirely physical reasons that climate and ocean experts are expecting that kind of sea level rise. But sure, it's probably the media's fault because they like hype!

Quote:

And what makes this even sadder for science, is questioning numbers like 9% of GDP and tens of meters of SLR gets you tossed into the denier box.

What gets YOU locked in the denier box is your repetitious, hostile ignorance and your dismissal of science whose implications you don't like.

If you think historical tide gauges with very poor global coverage can track ocean level changes of 1 mm per year or less, than you have more faith in the data than I do. They weren't designed for that purpose. I have no doubt people did their best with what they had, but it is poor data and of questionable reliability. The temperature record is a lot better then the SLR record.

I'll trust the satellite data that shows no acceleration over the time period when temperatures were increasing rapidly and CO2 was being emitted BAU. You may ignore this information if you prefer and depend on tide gauges.

I'm not so much contesting the historical SLR estimates, as I am saying these rates are much smaller than most people think. The IPCC expects the rates to increase, and the physics say it should if the temperatures rise, it just doesn't show up in the satellite record yet, and that is a mystery. Maybe it will later, time will tell.

Even with the expected "acceleration", 3 feet of SLR over 100 years is not time to hit the panic switch.

As I recall, you still haven't even gotten to the point where you can admit "tens of meters" of SLR at 2C is an exaggeration, right?

For the record, the actual current rate of sea It's 3 mm per year / 1 inch per decade. And the rate hasn't changed in 30 years based on satellite altimeter records. Only about half of this rise is due to human influence, the rest is naturally occurring since the end of the last ice age.

The IPCC expects this rate of increase to increase (i.e. acceleration) until we get about "1 of meter" of sea level rise by the end of the century. No sign of this acceleration yet based on the satellite measurements.

But seriously, "Only half of this rise is due to human influence." So human influence caused a 15 inch rise in sea levels in the last 30 years, by your estimation?

You're mixing up the numbers he presented.

1 inch per decade for the past 30 years = 3 decades = 3", half of which is 1.5".It won't be 15" until 2100.

Ok fair, mismathed, but I wasn't taking issue with the amount so much as the percentage. Half of the rise is manmade but it is still of literally no concern?

The point is that there will be SLR no matter what, and half of what we already have seen in the last 50 years was natural. We dealt with about 1 foot of SLR over the last century without incident, and we certainly can deal with 3 feet over the next 100 years if it comes to pass (the current rates show us doing another 1 foot this century, but it is expected to increase).

It is my opinion that everybody agrees on strengthening infrastructure against natural disasters, but once you toss the politics of global warming into the discussion, the debate instantly polarizes and collapses. So why do it?

The point is 30 years of data does not a point make. 3 feet over 100 is way more than 1 foot over 100 years. Like 300% more.

3 feet != the loss of our coastal cities which is oft quoted in climate hype.

Depending on the location, hurricane surges can approach 20 feet or more. It makes sense if you are building on a coastal location today and expect the building to last 100 years, then plan for surge height + expected SLR over 100 years. As new buildings are put up and old buildings torn down, the improved infrastructure is phased in. I see this all over Florida with older houses at land level and new houses on stilts.

The system is already working through continuous revision of building codes. People latching on to this as some sort of new and pending apocalypse is misguided.

Those who choose to live near the coast should bear the burden of their risk when it doesn't pan out. They shouldn't be prevented from building there. Insurance costs should reflect the actual risks. If the SLR accelerates faster than expected, then these people can expect higher insurance costs. The insurance costs today should reflect current sea levels, not theoretical future ones.

For the record, the actual current rate of sea It's 3 mm per year / 1 inch per decade. And the rate hasn't changed in 30 years based on satellite altimeter records.

This is what should be making you scared. The slowdown in surface temperature increase over the last 10-15 years had no effect on sea level rise. This is one indicator that the heat is going into the oceans.

If you think historical tide gauges with very poor global coverage can track ocean level changes of 1 mm per year or less, than you have more faith in the data than I do.

It doesn't matter what you or I think about it.

LISTEN TO THE FUCKING SCIENTISTS.

Your refusal to do this is why you keep getting the "denier" label. Look at the error bars on that graph. Read Merrifield et al. 2009. Check out Cazenave and Cozannet 2014. Etc. Etc. These people are experts who know what they're doing. Why are you second-guessing them with your blatant lack of specialist knowledge?

Quote:

I'll trust the satellite data that shows no acceleration over the time period when temperatures were increasing rapidly and CO2 was being emitted BAU. You may ignore this information if you prefer and depend on tide gauges.

Why would you expect the acceleration to show up discernibly in 30 years of data? We come once again to the point where you think that a mere 3 decades of SLR data is enough by which to dismiss concerns about future SLR, which is an even more extreme view than that of the North Carolina legislature that tried to limit its planning to only all the historical data. Have you gotten in touch with the Coastal Resources Commission yet, so that you can tell them how to do their jobs? You should tell them how they're doin it rong so we can save a bunch of taxpayer money.

Quote:

The IPCC expects the rates to increase, and the physics say it should if the temperatures rise, it just doesn't show up in the satellite record yet, and that is a mystery.

IS IT? HOW WOULD YOU KNOW?

Quote:

I'm not so much contesting the historical SLR estimates...

Yes you are! Why disregard it as unreliable if you're not contesting it? If you're not contesting it, why not accept it? When you say it's smaller than what "most people" think, does that include all the fucking scientists who have assembled the record of SLR for you?

Quote:

Even with the expected "acceleration", 3 feet of SLR over 100 years is not time to hit the panic switch.

The paper that spawned this article says otherwise. Again, what is your basis for dismissal?

Quote:

As I recall, you still haven't even gotten to the point where you can admit "tens of meters" of SLR at 2C is an exaggeration, right?

If you think historical tide gauges with very poor global coverage can track ocean level changes of 1 mm per year or less, than you have more faith in the data than I do.

It doesn't matter what you or I think about it.

LISTEN TO THE FUCKING SCIENTISTS.

Your refusal to do this is why you keep getting the "denier" label. Look at the error bars on that graph. Read Merrifield et al. 2009. Check out Cazenave and Cozannet 2014. Etc. Etc. These people are experts who know what they're doing. Why are you second-guessing them with your blatant lack of specialist knowledge?

Quote:

I'll trust the satellite data that shows no acceleration over the time period when temperatures were increasing rapidly and CO2 was being emitted BAU. You may ignore this information if you prefer and depend on tide gauges.

Why would you expect the acceleration to show up discernibly in 30 years of data? We come once again to the point where you think that a mere 3 decades of SLR data is enough by which to dismiss concerns about future SLR, which is an even more extreme view than that of the North Carolina legislature that tried to limit its planning to only all the historical data. Have you gotten in touch with the Coastal Resources Commission yet, so that you can tell them how to do their jobs? You should tell them how they're doin it rong so we can save a bunch of taxpayer money.

Quote:

The IPCC expects the rates to increase, and the physics say it should if the temperatures rise, it just doesn't show up in the satellite record yet, and that is a mystery.

IS IT? HOW WOULD YOU KNOW?

Quote:

I'm not so much contesting the historical SLR estimates...

Yes you are! Why disregard it as unreliable if you're not contesting it? If you're not contesting it, why not accept it? When you say it's smaller than what "most people" think, does that include all the fucking scientists who have assembled the record of SLR for you?

Quote:

Even with the expected "acceleration", 3 feet of SLR over 100 years is not time to hit the panic switch.

The paper that spawned this article says otherwise. Again, what is your basis for dismissal?

Quote:

As I recall, you still haven't even gotten to the point where you can admit "tens of meters" of SLR at 2C is an exaggeration, right?

You know it is possible to have a discussion without personalizing things, right? You will find the vast majority of people on forums can do this. I'm happy to discuss things with you if you can behave like an adult, ha ha. Otherwise feel free to ignore me and discuss things with people who share your views.

The IPCC expects the rates to increase, and the physics say it should if the temperatures rise, it just doesn't show up in the satellite record yet, and that is a mystery.

IS IT? HOW WOULD YOU KNOW?

I confess that I, too, would be surprised if satellites started observing the future

The satellite trend rate of increase is flat (i.e. linear). The SLR rate will need to be >3X the current rate if we are to get to 3 feet by the end of the century. You would expect after 20 years of BAU there would be evidence of this acceleration occurring. For larger SLR estimates, it is even more likely the acceleration should have emerged by now.

I think the satellite altimeter data is the best measurement we have (it's not surprising the two sides like different data sets), certainly more time is better for more accurate assessment. It's hard to pick accurate trends out of noisy data with relatively short timelines, thus the uncertainty and disagreement on many aspects of climate data. The question of what we do in the meantime is worthy of debate.

For the record, the actual current rate of sea It's 3 mm per year / 1 inch per decade. And the rate hasn't changed in 30 years based on satellite altimeter records.

This is what should be making you scared. The slowdown in surface temperature increase over the last 10-15 years had no effect on sea level rise. This is one indicator that the heat is going into the oceans.

If the heat was going into the oceans, then the sea level rise should have accelerated by means of thermal expansion?

The IPCC expects the rates to increase, and the physics say it should if the temperatures rise, it just doesn't show up in the satellite record yet, and that is a mystery.

IS IT? HOW WOULD YOU KNOW?

I confess that I, too, would be surprised if satellites started observing the future

The satellite trend rate of increase is flat (i.e. linear). The SLR rate will need to be >3X the current rate if we are to get to 3 feet by the end of the century. You would expect after 20 years of BAU there would be evidence of this acceleration occurring. For larger SLR estimates, it is even more likely the acceleration should have emerged by now.

20 years is still a comically capped range. Never mind how are we judging centuries? Centuries determined by calendar year or by when you decide SLR records start counting?

Quote:

I think the satellite altimeter data is the best measurement we have (it's not surprising the two sides like different data sets), certainly more time is better for more accurate assessment. It's hard to pick accurate trends out of noisy data with relatively short timelines, thus the uncertainty and disagreement on many aspects of climate data. The question of what we do in the meantime is worthy of debate.

Yet you seem very adamant on not expanding the timeline with any data previous to satellite altimeter readings. I'm pretty sure that particular detail is the causing rather than resulting disagreement on many aspects of the climate data - some people going "nuh uh, only this data set counts."

For the record, the actual current rate of sea It's 3 mm per year / 1 inch per decade. And the rate hasn't changed in 30 years based on satellite altimeter records.

This is what should be making you scared. The slowdown in surface temperature increase over the last 10-15 years had no effect on sea level rise. This is one indicator that the heat is going into the oceans.

If the heat was going into the oceans, then the sea level rise should have accelerated by means of thermal expansion?